Selfish developers / Neighbours
Discussion
Typical snidey PH racism coming out but planning enforcement as will a lot of other council enforcement is often weak and incocnsistent.
On one hand you have some people saying planners are inetrfering knobheads who go over the top whereas other times you have people saying they are not strict enough.
Personal opinion is that the neighbour hsould have left a wider gap but I dunno if that has any basis in planning law.
On one hand you have some people saying planners are inetrfering knobheads who go over the top whereas other times you have people saying they are not strict enough.
Personal opinion is that the neighbour hsould have left a wider gap but I dunno if that has any basis in planning law.
Take a tour of the rest of the street - they're all very similarly spaced!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
groomi said:
Take a tour of the rest of the street - they're all very similarly spaced!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
Not the same at all, they all seem to have a 1M+ side passageway, which is what any sane person would leave as a minimum.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
sjn2004 said:
Is the white house actually overhanging the land of the one with the extension? How can your property overhang over the land of a neighbour?
It does happen quite often where buildiings are built at or close to the boundry line with neighbouring land. This is why there is provison in the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which gives the right to cut back and remove such projections if they are preventing the neighbouring owner from construcitng a new wall/building on the boundary line as well.Mr GrimNasty said:
groomi said:
Take a tour of the rest of the street - they're all very similarly spaced!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
Not the same at all, they all seem to have a 1M+ side passageway, which is what any sane person would leave as a minimum.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
LeoSayer said:
BlackLabel said:
I don't know if this is true but I was once told that if you want to build an extension which you know you won't get planning permission for then just apply for planning permission for a more moderate, smaller extension and then build the bigger one anyway and more often than not you'll get away with it.
This quite literally was 'pub talk' so not sure if it was b
ks or not. It can't be true can it?
Not according to my architect. This quite literally was 'pub talk' so not sure if it was b
ks or not. It can't be true can it?He's got a client who is in a pain with the local planning department and neighbours by doing just this.
To cap it all, the land was by the side of the river and the builder built right up to the flood bank. So much so that the diggers had to drive over the bank to access the rear of the house, squashing it down just enough that the next time the river flooded it came over the lowered section and flooded the village causing damage running to about £5m. The builder used the I didn't know it was a flood bank excuse and got off Scott free.
groomi said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
groomi said:
Take a tour of the rest of the street - they're all very similarly spaced!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
Not the same at all, they all seem to have a 1M+ side passageway, which is what any sane person would leave as a minimum.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4305841,-1.86185...
MajorProblem said:
I don't know what's worse, the fact they've ruined next doors house or the fact they don't give a flying fk about what they are doing.
If you look closely at the bad DIY standard building work, they quite clearly don't have any brains at all, I should imagine their own house is devalued/unsaleable. k about what they are doing. I read the article about this in the Mail, one of the broadsheets as well as this thread and the comments seem to be full of a complete lack of understanding and some racial prejudice.
The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass. The Whites are quite content to have lived in a house built up to the boundary for 37 years and then have the cheek to moan when their neighbours want the same. If it's OK for them then its OK for Nazir, who's had to come up with a horrible roof eaves design to overcome the White's roof trespassing over his side. Whereas he has cause to complain for their trespass, they are complaining about him simply extending his house on all sorts of spurious grounds. Has Nazir asked the Whites to cut back and rebuild their eaves and stop trespassing? No-he's just got on with it.
The "maintaining the wall" argument is just crap - there's nothing to maintain. Even if there was the Whites would have to have put up scaffolding or ladders off the neighbour's roof, which would make them a right PITA.
The light and view moan is also crap. There is no right to a view or to light otherwise any moaning Minnie could put a stop to neighbours building anything "because it spoils the view"
Loss of value and being unsaleable is also crap. I've surveyed hundreds of houses with extensions right up the boundary and with neighbours houses right up to the boundary and it makes no difference.
Nazir's house looked quite appalling before the extension and is now well balanced and much more attractive, so maybe the White's house will be more saleable as next door is no longer a dump! I feel sorry for Nazir, he's got the neighbours from hell.
Finally the racism here is quite unacceptable. It's been suggested above that Nazir's are the same "tribe" as the chief planning officer, so presumably I'm the same "tribe" as the Whites as have the same surname. I thought PH was better than that.
The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass. The Whites are quite content to have lived in a house built up to the boundary for 37 years and then have the cheek to moan when their neighbours want the same. If it's OK for them then its OK for Nazir, who's had to come up with a horrible roof eaves design to overcome the White's roof trespassing over his side. Whereas he has cause to complain for their trespass, they are complaining about him simply extending his house on all sorts of spurious grounds. Has Nazir asked the Whites to cut back and rebuild their eaves and stop trespassing? No-he's just got on with it.
The "maintaining the wall" argument is just crap - there's nothing to maintain. Even if there was the Whites would have to have put up scaffolding or ladders off the neighbour's roof, which would make them a right PITA.
The light and view moan is also crap. There is no right to a view or to light otherwise any moaning Minnie could put a stop to neighbours building anything "because it spoils the view"
Loss of value and being unsaleable is also crap. I've surveyed hundreds of houses with extensions right up the boundary and with neighbours houses right up to the boundary and it makes no difference.
Nazir's house looked quite appalling before the extension and is now well balanced and much more attractive, so maybe the White's house will be more saleable as next door is no longer a dump! I feel sorry for Nazir, he's got the neighbours from hell.
Finally the racism here is quite unacceptable. It's been suggested above that Nazir's are the same "tribe" as the chief planning officer, so presumably I'm the same "tribe" as the Whites as have the same surname. I thought PH was better than that.
TorqueVR said:
I read the article about this in the Mail, one of the broadsheets as well as this thread and the comments seem to be full of a complete lack of understanding and some racial prejudice.
The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass.
Yes looking at the front garden boundary wall and the eaves it does look as though hes built on the whites land.The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass.
Whether the whites were previously bothered about the foot the neighbour was using at ground level is another matter
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/pla...
As you can see the neighbour is building an extension so close it's up under the eaves.
Surely the boundary is in the wrong place if that happens?
Just looked on google the boundary wall is left of centre so something has gone wrong with the line
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=The+Hurst,+in+Mos...
saaby93 said:
TorqueVR said:
I read the article about this in the Mail, one of the broadsheets as well as this thread and the comments seem to be full of a complete lack of understanding and some racial prejudice.
The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass.
Yes looking at the front garden boundary wall and the eaves it does look as though hes built on the whites land.The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass.
Whether the whites were previously bothered about the foot the neighbour was using at ground level is another matter
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/pla...
As you can see the neighbour is building an extension so close it's up under the eaves.
Surely the boundary is in the wrong place if that happens?
Just looked on google the boundary wall is left of centre so something has gone wrong with the line
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=The+Hurst,+in+Mos...
Foppo said:
saaby93 said:
TorqueVR said:
I read the article about this in the Mail, one of the broadsheets as well as this thread and the comments seem to be full of a complete lack of understanding and some racial prejudice.
The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass.
Yes looking at the front garden boundary wall and the eaves it does look as though hes built on the whites land.The White's house looks to be built right up to the boundary line and the tiny gap between them and Mr Nazir seems to be on Nazir's land; if I'm wrong he's built over the boundary and on the White's garden. I assume that's not the case as otherwise the Whites wound be raising merry hell about it and the papers would be going on about trespass.
Whether the whites were previously bothered about the foot the neighbour was using at ground level is another matter
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/pla...
As you can see the neighbour is building an extension so close it's up under the eaves.
Surely the boundary is in the wrong place if that happens?
Just looked on google the boundary wall is left of centre so something has gone wrong with the line
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=The+Hurst,+in+Mos...
It seems the house next door has been using that foot at ground level as if it's their own and have now built on it, leading to the unhappy situation.
There are other houses in the street that have temporary structures in a similar place, including to the right of the white house.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff